[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Mon Dec 11 15:35:09 EET 2017
Friday looks like a good solution - will go through the comment tonight.
Farz and I are working on the jurisdiction and ombudsman reports
comments, so a note to all to stay tuned - we will share them this week
On 10/12/17 10:00, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
> Thanks for the question, it seems that when it comes to a matter
> related to technical aspects (they are using IETF terminology), "must"
> is often used while "encourage" (6 occurrences )is more for
> informational matter and urging registries to cooperate for example.
> knowing how much IDNs are facing as problems to be implemented and not
> necessarily seen as a good business opportunity for many registrars
> except for some non-latin scripts, I would think the guidelines should
> be implementable and less onerous in order to provide registrants more
> we can put a note anyway saying that we think that we prefer the term
> "shall" or "should" at least which is probably stronger "encourage".
> btw the staff is keen to give us an extension and asking when we can
> submit. I would suggest to them that we can submit by this Friday.
> 2017-12-10 6:40 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
> I don't have a strong opinion on this issue or on our comment,
> however, in the source document
> the word "encourage" is used frequently. i.e. "Encourage
> registrars to notify registrants of non-conforming registered
> domain names".
> Do we think this terminology is appropriate? I prefer words like
> "must" - they give registrants more clarity over what they can
> expect from registrars - but I could be persuaded otherwise.
> — Ayden
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on
>> IDN Guidelines
>> Local Time: 9 December 2017 5:37 AM
>> UTC Time: 9 December 2017 05:37
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>> hi all,
>> the deadline for submission is 10th December, I will try to ask
>> for few days extension. I would like to ask you review the draft
>> for endorsement or not.
>> after that, we can focus on several public comments which
>> deadline is around 5th January.
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Farell Folly* <farellfolly at gmail.com
>> <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2017-12-05 0:38 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>> Dear All,
>> In October 2017, ICANN called for a second public comment on the
>> version 4.0 of IDN Guidelines. Actually, following the first
>> round of comments most of the concerns addressed by the community
>> were taken into account. Nevertheless, two questions remain open
>> and some people here may think it is useful to discuss them.
>> Please check what we drafted
>> so far and make your suggestions, if any. Otherwise, we won't
>> have a significant comment on this report and just endorse it.
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NCSG-PC